@invalid: "Pope Pius IX in 1869 extended punishment of excommunication for the 
abortion of an embryo at any age. In 1951, Pius XII restated the 
principle, saying: �Every human being, even the child in the mother�s 
womb, receives its right to life directly from God, not from its 
parents.� Speaking in Kenya in 1985, John Paul II bluntly declared: 
�Actions such as contraception and abortion are wrong.�
Many Catholics today, however, maintain that such an attitude is out of 
date and must be revised. As a result, Roman Catholics are divided over 
the issue."
    @wmech: "The serious problems is that these religious fanatics would like to change 
the law and
FORCE this on everyone else.
Before birth, and certainly before the third trimester, the fetus is not yet 
a functioning human.
It is a part of, and totally dependent on, the women's body. All decisions 
on abortion belong to the women
not some religious bigot or legislature.
"Cracklin'" <email_address> wrote in message 
news:75vFe.233$<email_address>
<quote>"
    @wxpprofessional: ""Bill" <email_address> wrote in message 
news:AdvFe.1686$<email_address>
<quote>
What part of Pro-Choice is NOT forced on the nation?
A total lie.
Sure doesn't seem that way.
It has no body of its own?
BULLSHIT!
WIthout representative government there is no democracy. "
    @graham: "<quote>
But by forcing choice on people, you are not only allowing
them to have abortions if they want them - you are also
allowing them not to have abortions if they don't want them.
Everybody gets to do what their conscience dictates. Whereas
the "pro life" side want to force their conscience on
everybody."
    @darklady: "On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 14:30:57 -0400, "Johnny" <email_address>
wrote:
<quote>
	Oh, yeah. We sure wouldn't want people to have individual
autonomy, would we? Much better to let someone else make all the
decisions.
	Like... what church you should attend, for instance. Yeah, who
needs this Pro-Choice shit when it comes to religion. People can't be
trusted and the government should make those decisions for them.
	Do you actually know anything about fetal development?
	Not one that can function independently, no. 
	And we have a representative government that represents its
citizens. Fetuses are not citizens any more than an acorn is an oak.
 Darklady
<url>
<url>"
    @darrell_stec: "After serious contemplation, on or about Tuesday 26 July 2005 3:51 pm
<quote>
No rape, no babies.  Have you stopped rape from occurring yet? easy
Later,
Darrell Stec      <email_address>
Webpage Sorcery
<url>
We Put the Magic in Your Webpages"
    @wxpprofessional: ""Graham Kennedy" <email_address> wrote in message 
news:BsvFe.6851$<email_address>
<quote>
Which is an unequal measure policy.
People want a rule that everyone agrees with instead of a choice agenda that 
does nothing to ensure that the consciences of some are not violated and 
that others are not saddled with burdens beyond others because they chose 
not to have an abortion while others did and escaped their created 
responsibilities that others chose not to escape via abortion.
Choice is not a common agenda in the USA. "
    @wxpprofessional: ""Darklady" <email_address> wrote in message 
news:<email_address>
<quote>
Especially fetuses and men in the sexist woman's right to choose agenda, 
right?
The beauty of law is that no one does the deciding.
With Pro-Choice you have the burden of defending your choice.
People are very untrustworthy nowadays in the USA, but that only includes 
the shysters of the NASD and Pro-Choicers.
Quite a bit.
There is nothing non-functional about a human being in gestation.
It isn't supposed to be walking and talking already or driving a car.
Which is shows that it needs the womb to survive, and that any outside force 
invading it is a threat unto its existence.
Fetuses do not need to be citizens to be represented.
The voters are who have the power to decide this issue.
If the voters decide that fetuses, even thought they afre not considered 
citizens, have the right to live, then that is the way that the government 
must rule. "
    @duckgumbo32: "<quote>
They can always quit the Church and commit mortal sin, but they can never take
God out of rejecting the evil.
duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****"
    @duckgumbo32: "<quote>
Then it should be no problem as long as she doesn't hurt another human life,
which is not hers.
duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****"
    @duckgumbo32: "<quote>
Not to worry about  their conscience.  God has them booked to go regardless of
their conscience.
And dat be da way it tis.
duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****"
    @duckgumbo32: "<quote>
Yes, yes I do.  And it's human life lperry@example.org.  And it don't
belong to momma.
She is just the life support system after conception.
duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****"
    @prochoice: "On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 14:15:13 -0400, Cracklin' <email_address> in
alt.abortion with message-id <75vFe.233$<email_address>>
wrote:
<quote>
The majority that is not catholic could not possibly care less what
any pope says."
    @prochoice: "On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 14:30:57 -0400, "Johnny" <email_address>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<quote>
All of it.  No one is required to choose an abortion - it is simply
one of the two available options.  No force of any kind is involved.
No, live birth is required for a human being, a person, to exist.
In your opinion.
Fine.  Remove it, put it on a table, and let it take care of itself.
Or you take care of it if that is what floats your boat.
If a woman is prevented from a course of action that is not freedom.
It is tyranny."
    @prochoice: "On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 15:51:27 -0400, Reel MCkoI <email_address>
in alt.abortion with message-id <mvwFe.260$<email_address>>
wrote:
<quote>
No eating, no food poison.
When did sex become illegal?  Why should a legal activity be
restricted?"
    @prochoice: "On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 17:12:46 -0400, "Johnny" <email_address>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<quote>
How?  Each person involved makes her own decision.  That is total
freedom.
The 'choice agenda' is simply allowing a woman to make her own choice.
The only alternative is to force her into a single course of action
whether she agrees or not.
Those people are free to decide not to get an abortion.  What is the
problem with that?
But if they consider all tech factors involved and make their choice
accordingly they have the freedom that this country is founded upon.
Freedom does not imply protection from the consequences of a decision
freely made.
They make that as part of their consideration, and are free to decide
accordingly.  This seems to bother you.
Do you have a problem with people making personal decisions that you
do not support or do not meet with your approval?
Why should anyone care what you think?
But that is their decision to make isn't it?
Actually it is, since freedom if an important principle in this
country and there is no freedom without free choices."
    @graham: "<quote>
Not sure what you mean by that phrase. In what
way is it unequal?
Then they are out of luck, and always will be. There is
no such thing as a rule that everybody agrees with,
never has been such a thing and never will be so long
as Humans retain the power of thought.
If people choose to "saddle" themselves with the "burden"
of an abortion, that is their choice and their problem.
It certainly seems to be going out of fashion."
    @prochoice: "On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 17:23:55 -0400, "Johnny" <email_address>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<quote>
What right to choose agenda?  The freedom of choice is not
complicated, and certainly has no agenda.
Then you would have the law tell you everything.  What to wear, what
to eat, where to work, where to live.
Why?  A woman does not need to defend her other choices.  Why this
one?
So some people can decide for themselves but others must be told what
to do?  I suppose those who are to be told are those who disagree with
you?
It isn't complete either.
Which proves it is not a human being.
Is your toe represented?
And it has been decided for centuries.
Please give an exact reference showing where anyone has a right to
live.choice"
    @graham: "<quote>
Conscience matters to them. As for what god may think
about things if he does exist, frankly my dear, I don't
give a damn. I can't think of one single reason why
I should think of him as the boss of me."
    @prochoice: "On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 17:26:00 -0500, duke <email_address> in
alt.abortion with message-id
<quote>
I missed your proof that any god exists.  Please repost it."
    @prochoice: "On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 17:29:45 -0500, duke <email_address> in
alt.abortion with message-id
<quote>
So is my toe.  Just as human as a fetus.
Then she can have it removed as an interloper and not wanted.
Exactly where is the requirement that she must provide such a life
support system against her will?"
    @prochoice: "On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 17:24:23 -0500, duke <email_address> in
alt.abortion with message-id
<quote>
But it is hurting her.  Why can't she protect herself?"
    @wxpprofessional: ""Attila" <email_address> wrote in message 
news:<email_address>
<quote>
It is unequal measure based on personal habits.
Which is totally sexist.
Which would not be sexist.
The fact that others are doing it while they will not do it.
To have am equal measure policy requires equal measure practice.
Freedom which guarantees representative government above unrepresentative 
government.
Freedom implies freedom from the evils of others.
It bothers many people.
Many people have a problem with it.
Because many people feel as I do about it.
They are very uncomfortable with abortion on demand.
But, it is not a mandate which equal measure policies depends upon.
Not according to surveys.
So, you are in favor of abolishing all laws? "
    @wxpprofessional: ""Attila" <email_address> wrote in message 
news:<email_address>
<quote>
Which is a negligent act.
Why me?
It isn't my child.
A woman?
Listen, numbskull, anti-democracy loon.
There are more persons in the USA and the world than women."
    @wxpprofessional: ""Mark Sebree" <email_address> wrote in message 
news:<email_address>
<quote>
Why don't you tell that to the pimps who overlord it over them to turn 
tricks?
Why don't you tell that to all the employers who emlpoy women?
You are defending a lie.
It does.
Not in fact. The government has a duty to represent its people, and it also 
has a right to dictate what people can do with their bodies in the interest 
of serving the people.
And, the government can require performance by persons who commit various 
acts in society.
Bullshit.
Bullshit.
You are resisting democratic rule.
The Constitution dictates that this nation be operated for the people, for 
freedom. "
    @wxpprofessional: ""Mark Sebree" <email_address> wrote in message 
news:<email_address>
<quote>
It is neither slavery, indenture servitude, nor torture.
No one is accusing them of a crime.
No one is torturing them.
You are too ignorant to make that determination.
Herself.
In your opinion.
According to you all pregnant women are not free.
You would accuse of her committing a crime?
Not by me she isn't.
Sounds like is not what slavery is.
Where will you find the evidence to support your accusation?
Where you will find the evidence in individual cases to support your 
accusations?
Yes. Many times. Some requirements, if not fulfilled, make the 
non-fulfillfer culpable.
Why don't you tell me?
I didn't accused her of a crime.
Shows your ignorance again.
You are too ignorant of the law to make such statements.
Your rebellious side is showing.
Yet, only you believe it.
You are outnumbered.
Wrong.
Your resistance is futile.
You are defending none of those things in what is supposed to be a 
democratic society.
Why not?
You slipped again.
Involuntary servitude is nowhere to be found in pregnancies which result 
from consensual sex.
Why do you ignore the other half?
Who is selling women into slavery?
Your inaccuracy is observed.
Only in your decieved mind.
In your deceived mind.
In a democracy, the will of the people is to be represented above special 
interests. "
    @prochoice: "On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 19:51:33 -0400, "Johnny" <email_address>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<quote>
Nonsense.  Personal habits are irrelevant.  All pregnant women have
the same right.
Irrelevant nonsense.  That argument shows nothing but desperation, and
is just silly.
Irrelevant nonsense.  That argument shows nothing but desperation, and
is just silly.
No.  Only equal availability.
Which we have.  And which includes the freedom of choice.
No.  Who defines these 'evils'?  I consider those who push a religious
agenda as among the most evil.
Too bad.  Personally I could not care less.  
What others do is really none of your business, and if a woman gets an
abortion it doe snot affect you in any way.  In fact, you won't even
know about it.
Too bad.  Personally I could not care less.  
What others do is really none of your business, and if a woman gets an
abortion it doe snot affect you in any way.  In fact, you won't even
know about it.
Too bad.  Personally I could not care less.  
What others do is really none of your business, and if a woman gets an
abortion it doe snot affect you in any way.  In fact, you won't even
know about it.
Whatever that means.
Nonsense.
Of course not.  I am not an anarchist.  I do support maximizing
freedom and minimizing restrictions."
    @prochoice: "On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 19:57:23 -0400, "Johnny" <email_address>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<quote>
No it is not.  Where is she forced to take care of it?
You seem to be the one objecting to her having it removed.  Personally
I could not care less.
Yes, since it is women who become pregnant.
But as far as the freedom of choice is concerned only women are
directly involved."
    @calee: "<quote>
Not his problem, moron. Learn what the falsifiable position pending
support for a claim is, and why people demand that you either put up
or shut up."
    @prochoice: "On 27 Jul 2005 04:12:36 -0700, "Zod" <email_address> in
alt.abortion with message-id
<quote>
But I have not asserted any god does not exist.  A statement was
clearly made indicating one does exist so back it up."
    @prochoice: "On 27 Jul 2005 04:08:39 -0700, "Zod" <email_address> in
alt.abortion with message-id
<quote>
That has nothing to do with whether or not a particular tissue sample
is human.  DNA testing will determine this, and will prove my toe is
exactly as human as a fetus.  As is my ear, my nose, and my liver."
    @calee: "<quote>
On his planet, asking for proof is like asking for proof that the
planet Earth exists, only more so."
    @invalid: "<quote>
To make such a statement or question, is indicative that he has previous 
knowledge that God doesn't exist. So Let see Attila put up or shut up."
    @calee: "On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 09:35:30 -0400, reel mckoi <email_address>
wrote:
<quote>
No, Jabriol's moronic sock-puppet, that is merely how the real world
works."
    @invalid: "<quote>
the subject with a totally unrelated reply, attached to a personal 
attack. Next she will have people call your local police dept claiming 
you are a rapist."
    @prochoice: "On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 09:35:30 -0400, reel mckoi <email_address>
in alt.abortion with message-id <V4MFe.24$<email_address>>
wrote:
<quote>
Wrong.  My statement takes no position on the existence or
non-existence of any god.  I am simply asking you to support what you
said.
Your statement, however, clearly asserted a god exists.  Prove it.
It is not uncommon for a simple request for proof of the assertion for
a god to be twisted into an assertion there is no god, but this is not
a valid position.  No such assertion was made.
Your failure to support your assertion will clearly indicate you are
simply someone who babbles about something with no interest in whether
what you say is accurate or not."
    @wxpprofessional: ""Attila" <email_address> wrote in message 
news:<email_address>
<quote>
The law does protect children in case you forgot about that.
Another remark that reilies on sexism.
BULLSHIT! Why isn't it only the pregnant woman who is involved then? Why 
does she need assistance?
That perspective is not sufficient to govern a society that is comprised of 
men, women, and children."
    @prochoice: "On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 12:05:23 -0400, "Johnny" <email_address>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<quote>
But the parent is not required to provide this support.  She can
surrender all parental rights and lperry@example.org.
This from someone who considers pregnancy sexism.
Because performing medical procedures is something a trained
specialist does, and few people perform any medical procedures on
themselves.
You really ask stupid questions don;t you?
It seems to work pretty well."
    @prochoice: "On 27 Jul 2005 14:07:35 -0700, "ReelMcKoi" <email_address>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<quote>
Wrong.  Once born any sufficiently motivated person can take care of a
baby.  It is not necessary this person be it's mother."
    @wxpprofessional: ""ReelMcKoi" <email_address> wrote in message 
news:<email_address>
<quote>
Any of them that can say "it is your right to choose, and I can't have this 
baby."
A vendetta after some man got them pregnant?
Why wouldn't they be for their right to disallow an abortion if a man who 
got them pregnant was for an abortion? "
    @darklady: "On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 17:23:55 -0400, "Johnny" <email_address>
wrote:
<quote>
	As soon as you can prove to me that a fetus HAS any autonomy
that it can exercise, we'll have a serious discussion on the subject. 
	When men become pregnant, you can explain to me why this is a
men's right to choose agenda issue. I believe that men have a right to
speak on the subject, but the final decision needs to be made by
women.
	With Pro-Choice you have the ability to MAKE a choice. 
	Uhhh... sure. Adjust your tin foil cap a bit there, pal, I
think it's sliding.
	Nor communicating anything between the nervous system and the
brain, which is kinda important if you're going to be a functioning
human BEING. 
	Kinda odd that you think what defines humanity is that some
can walk and even fewer can drive a car.
	And this is a compelling reason to force a woman to carry a
pregnancy to term against her will? 
	Fetuses do need to be citizens in order to be represented in a
case like this, where the *presumed* best interest of the fetus (which
isn't even a human being, let alone a citizen) is at odds with the
pre-existing and sentient woman whose body it inhabits. 
 Darklady
<url>
<url>"
{'source': 'USENET', 'other_information': '{"reply_count": 40, "forum_name": "rec.ponds.20140808.mbox"}', 'file': 'data/output/usenet-rec.ponds.parquet'}